Barriers to the Adoption of the Circular Economy in Zimbabwe’s Construction Industry to Reduce Environmental Degradation.

Barriers to the Adoption of the Circular Economy in Zimbabwe’s Construction Industry to Reduce Environmental Degradation.

Panashe Daswa, Tafadzwa Kudzai Dzimiri, Panashe Heather Mashonganyika

Department of Quantity Surveying, National University of Science and Technology, Zimbabwe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.12030080

Received: 07 March 2024; Accepted: 21 March 2025; Published: 18 April 2025

ABSTRACT

The construction sector significantly contributes to global resource consumption, climate change, and waste generation. The circular economy (CE) concept provides a potential solution to these problems. However, several barriers hinder CE adoption in the Zimbabwean construction industry from mitigating environmental degradation. This study sought to evaluate the barriers to the adoption of the circular Economy in the Zimbabwean construction industry to mitigate environmental degradation. Adopting a pragmatic philosophy, the study employed an online questionnaire survey of construction industry professionals, achieving a 64% response rate. The validity of the survey instrument was established through pilot testing. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyse the data, calculate the severity index, and mean scores of the identified barriers. The study concluded that the primary barriers impeding circular economy adoption are high upfront costs, perception of quality and durability of recycled materials, inadequate CE infrastructure, limited expertise, and inadequate support from the government. These findings provide insights for policy makers and key stakeholders, intending to provide actionable insights for promoting a more sustainable and circular construction sector, suggesting the establishment of financial mechanisms such as tax breaks, green bonds, and subsidies to try to mitigate investment costs associated with the adoption of CE.

Keywords: Circular Economy, Construction industry, environmental degradation, barriers, Zimbabwe

INTRODUCTION

The construction industry has garnered significant attention due to its unsustainable consumption of raw materials, estimated at 40-50% (Seyis, 2020), its substantial carbon emissions, and excessive waste generation. This has prompted policymakers, academics, and industry professionals to collaboratively explore sustainable construction practices (Benachio et al., 2020). These escalating environmental challenges necessitate a shift in the construction industry from the linear economic paradigm, characterized by the “take, make, and dispose” model (Munaro, 2020), to a circular economy (CE) model, which promises to mitigate environmental problems (Panteli et al, 2018). This transition is crucial, as continued reliance on unsustainable resource production and consumption patterns risks catastrophic resource scarcity (Heshmati, 2017), with potentially devastating consequences for the building sector (Han et al., 2020; Fernholz et al., 2020).

Circularity emphasizes reducing the extraction of virgin materials (Murray, et al., 2015), contrasting sharply with the linear economy’s ‘take, make and dispose’ approach, which accelerates resource depletion and exacerbates environmental issues (Radhakrishnan, 2017). The circular economy represents a continuation material lifecycle, mirroring natural cycles (Gullingsrud and Perkins, 2015). It is regenerative and restorative for resources, societies, and the environment (Leonas, 2017).

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) defines the circular economy based on three fundamental principles: reduce, reuse, and recycle construction resources.   Heshmati (2017) explains that “reduce” involves minimizing dependence on virgin materials; “reuse” explores repeated use of extracted materials, extending the lifespan of existing building stock; and “recycle” refers to altering materials properties to create secondary materials, either upcycled (value-added) or downcycled (value-reduced) (Guerra et al., 2021). By promoting innovation in industries and infrastructure, tackling climate change,  and reducing the harmful impact of materials, the circular economy aligns with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs) (Willis, 2015). It is a system designed to be restorative and regenerative, decoupling economic growth from resource utilization (Ghisellini, Cialani, and Ulgiati, 2016).

Environmental management is a global priority, from international to regional levels. In Zimbabwe, this is enshrined in Constitutional Amendment Number 20 of 2023, Section 73 (Environmental rights), which states, “everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing …”. This underscores the need for construction industry to develop knowledge and tools for widespread CE adoption (Bocken et al, 2017), promoting environmentally sound practices (Machisa, 2021). However, despite the established framework of the circular economy, limited literature exists on its adoption within the Zimbabwean construction industry compared to other developing and developed nations. This may be attributed to the Zimbabwean construction sector’s historically slow adoption of new work practices and innovations, which affects its overall performance (Nheta, 2019). While CE adoption presents both challenges and opportunities, this study will evaluate on the barriers to circular economy adoption in the Zimbabwean construction industry to mitigate environmental degradation.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Adoption of Circular Economy (CE)

The Circular Economy (CE) concept offers a pathway to address resource scarcity and waste management by fostering a symbiotic relationship between economic growth and environmental sustainability  (Homrich, et al., 2018). The European Commission (2020) defines CE as extending the value and sustainability of products for as long as possible, effectively eliminating waste. The core goal is to maintain them in a continuous production loop (AlJaber, et al., 2023). This strategy limits the use of natural resources, partially substituting them with secondary raw materials (Abad-Segura et al. 2021; Pavolova et al. 2020), thereby promoting natural resource conservation. (Sverko Grdic et al. 2020)

The circular Economy paradigm has garnered increasing research interest globally (Mhlanga, et al., 2022), driven by its potential as an alternative to the unsustainable linear “take, make, dispose” model (Benachio, et al., 2020). This surge in interest between 2016 and 2017 (Norouzi et al., 2021; Akhimien et al., 2021) led to the emergence of diverse Ce concepts and trends (Mhlanga, et al., 2022).

With a circular economy, construction resources are kept in a continuous cycle of use. This is achieved through reducing virgin material extraction, recycling used material, and reusing recycled material, which collectively reduces resource depletion and carbon footprint (Martín-Morales, et al., 2021). Given the construction sector’s contribution to climate change, the use of circular inputs, such as recycled aggregates, is crucial. Studies have demonstrated the potential of recycled materials, such as wood bio-concrete, and the results indicated that an increase in wood shaving content in wood bio-concrete contributed to climate mitigation. (Caldas et al. 2021). Furthermore, examples like the clean energy transition in Meili, China, showcase the significant impact of industrial symbiosis and resource reuse on reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions (Su and Urban 2021). The modelling results from 2020 to 2040 show an energy saving of 7.1 Mega tons of oil equivalent (34%) and a reduction of 14.5 Mega tons of carbon dioxide.

In Zimbabwe, there are emerging examples of CE principles being applied in the construction sector. The Zimbabwe Building Contractors Association has embraced circular economy business approaches to drive greater ecological improvements and new business opportunities in the country’s construction sector (Manomano, 2023). Innovative projects, like the development of “Lego Plasilica Bricks” from recycled plastic (Tsiko, 2023; Enerva, 2021), demonstrated the potential for reusing waste materials and creating more durable, sustainable building components. The use of polystyrene as a primary building material in a model house in Sunway City Harare, and the passive cooling system of Eastgate Mall (Guardian 2018; World Green Building 2019; Green Building Council, 2018) further exemplify the growing interest in circular construction practices in Zimbabwe.

While these examples are encouraging, it is important to acknowledge that the transition to a fully circular economy faces inherent challenges. As Thomas (2021) argues, reaching complete circularity is technically limited due to factors such as material degradation, long-term material stock, and the sheer volume of materials in use. Despite these limitations, the pursuit of circularity remains crucial to mitigating environmental degradation and promoting sustainable development. Studies such as the life cycle assessment comparing different structural methods (Joensuu et al., 2022) and the analysis of recycled concrete aggregate use (Butera et al., 2015; Purchase et al., 2022; Yuan et al., 2025). Highlight the significant environmental and economic benefits of embracing circular practices. Global examples such as Japan’s high metal recycling rates and effective waste management policies (Fidelis et al., 2021; Abad-Segura et al., 2021; Breure et al., 2018), demonstrate the potential of circular economy strategies. The UNDP (2021) further emphasizes the significant role of CE in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Challenges to the adoption of CE

While the Circular Economy (CE) concept presents a promising strategy for transforming the construction sector towards sustainable resource use and environmental degradation mitigation, its widespread adoption is hindered by various barriers, Several authors (Adams , et al., 2017; AlJaber, et al., 2023; Hart, et al., 2018; Mahpour, 2018; Rahla , et al., 2019) have identified these obstacles with  (AlJaber, et al., 2023)  categorizing them into six distinct categories (social, cultural, awareness technical, economic and implementation). While this category provides a useful framework, this study will not explicitly adhere to these classifications, instead, this study will take an exploratory approach, investigating the full range of potential barriers without pre-defining specific categories. The analysis will then identify the most salient and impactful barriers to CE adoption. The existing literature, particularly from 2017 onwards, has been instrumental in identifying these barriers, forming the basis for this study.

High Initial Cost

High initial costs present a significant barrier to CE adoption (Chong and Gau, 2015). While some argue that CE offers long-term cost savings, the transition to this model often necessitates substantial upfront investments in new strategies, technologies, and infrastructure (Tleuken et al., 2022). This is particularly true regarding the development of circular economy infrastructure. The lack of such infrastructure, including off-site fabrication workshops, recycling facilities, and digital tools, significantly impedes the adoption of circular economy practices. This shortage explains the limited application of CE in the construction industry, especially in emerging economies like Zimbabwe (Dams et al., 2021).

Lack of CE infrastructure

Only Adams, et al. (2017) highlight the Lack of Circular Economy infrastructure as a barrier. The lack of adequate infrastructure poses a significant obstacle to CE adoption. Adams , et al., (2017) rightly point out that the existing building stock often lacks design for disassembly, leading to resource loss during deconstruction. This is just one facet of the infrastructure challenge. Design issues like large material sizes, non-disassembling joints, and intricate materials composition further complicate the process. Additionally, detaching bricks, especially when combined with cement, and reusing reinforced concrete parts are common difficulties (Hart, et al., 2019). However, the lack of recycling and processing facilities is also a factor.

Limited knowledge,

Limited knowledge and expertise regarding CE concepts and potential benefits among stakeholders and policy makers constitute a significant barrier to its adoption (Hart, et al., 2019; Anastasiades, et al., 2020). Shooshtarian, et al. (2023) found that knowledge levels are particularly low among key construction project stakeholders, including clients, architects, and contractors. This lack of understanding significantly influences adoption rates, as stakeholders may overlook the potential economic and environmental gains or circular practices  (De Silva, et al., 2023), thereby missing opportunities to create more circular and profitable outcomes  (AlJaber, et al., 2023).

Inadequate government support,

Government plays a crucial role in facilitating and accelerating the transition to a circular model through various mechanisms, including tax incentives, regulatory frameworks, and policy initiatives (Luciano et al, 2022). The absence of such support, particularly in the form of tax incentives, can significantly hinder this transition to a circular economy (Luciano et al, 2022; Benites et al, 2023). These incentives are essential for offsetting the initial costs associated with adopting circular practices. Without them, businesses may perceive CE as a financial burden, reducing their motivation to embrace it (AlJaber, et al., 2023). Beyond financial incentives, a supportive regulatory environment is equally critical. The lack of clear regulations and policy frameworks can create uncertainty and reluctance among businesses and investors (AlJaber, et al., 2023). Government involvement provides a clear direction and legal framework within which organizations can operate, enabling them to align their strategies with CE principles. As Gerbens-Leenes , et al. (2018) argue, insufficient regulatory incentives, funding, or pressure to prioritize circularity of materials can perpetuate conventional practices, and the use of primary materials can remain more profitable; this can create a disincentive for businesses to invest in circular solutions.

Perception of quality of recycled/reused material or building components,

A prevalent negative viewpoint persists, with many stakeholders preferring buildings constructed using virgin materials (Dunant et al, 2017). This bias often stems from lack of awareness or understanding of the advancements in recycling and reprocessing technologies, leading to misconceptions about the quality and durability of secondary materials ( Mahpour, 2018). Furthermore, the value embedded within construction and demolition waste is frequently overlooked, with industry professionals failing to recognize its potential as a valuable resource (Purchase et al, 2022). This lack of recognition contributes to reduced market demand for recycled and reused materials in construction projects (Hossain et al, 2020), limiting the economic viability of circular practices and hindering CE adoption progress. Moreover, the reuse of products is generally perceived as a lower-quality alternative in comparison to virgin materials, which makes the quality of recovered materials doubtful by the public (Wuni, 2022). In agreement with this, Chibesakunda et al., (2023) note that a lack of confidence in reprocessed materials is further exacerbates this challenge.

Cultural resistance to change

Studies have shown that established consumer behaviour patterns within the industry often favour the linear “take, make, dispose” model, creating resistance to the adoption of new CE practices (AlJaber, et al., 2023). This resistance can stem from a lack of understanding regarding the benefits and underlying principles of CE, leading to scepticism and reluctance to embrace change (Adams, et al., 2017). Moreover, powerful stakeholders with vested interests in maintaining the status quo of linear production can actively resist the shift towards circularity (Cellucci, 2021). Lastly, AlJaber et al. (2023) argue that the lack of understanding of the benefits and principles of the CE leads to social resistance to change (AlJaber, et al., 2023). Moreover, a circular economy expects consumers to dynamically participate in the reuse of products, change their throwaway culture, and thus form an awareness of sustainability (Prajapati et al., 2019), however, stakeholders often want to stick to their old ways of doing things which results in the persistence of linear economy practices.

Lack of training

A critical skills gap related to the circular economy further hinders CE adoption. According to (Rahla , et al., 2019) improper deconstruction procedures, often stemming from inadequate training, are being encountered on sites. Training programs about CE strategies can provide stakeholders with needed skills to implement CE principles ( Shooshtarian, et al., 2023).

Policy and regulatory barrier

Policy and regulatory barriers constitute a significant impediment to the widespread adoption of circular economy practices. A lack of consistent and supportive regulatory framework is frequently cited as a major obstacle (Hart, et al., 2018). Existing laws and regulations often present challenges As ( Mahpour, 2018) argues, inadequate regulations and waste management policies hinder progress towards zero-waste society and, particularly concerning waste management policies hinders progress towards a zero-waste society and exacerbate the development gap in CE. Furthermore, the absence of a global consensus on policy support for CE (Hart, et al., 2018)creates further complexity and inconsistency.

Lack of awareness

Authors like ( Mahpour, 2018) (Hart, et al., 2018) and (AlJaber, et al., 2023) agree that the lack of awareness of the CE concept poses barriers to adoption. However, Oyedele, et al. (2014) further postulate that case studies are critical as they provide real-world examples of successful implementation that encourage stakeholders to adopt new practices. The absence of evidence showing the economic benefits of design for deconstruction hinders its implementation (Oyedele , et al., 2014).

 Limited supply and demand of recycled resources

When construction materials reach the end of their useful life, their quality, condition, and readiness for reuse or recycling can have a substantial influence on their circularity potential (Hart, et al., 2019). According to (Adams, et al., 2017; Homrich, et al., 2018) after recycling products, it becomes difficult to justify the cost of recycling or upcycling, leading to a lack of economically viable reuse or recycling options. Additionally, (Hartwell, et al., 2021; Giorgi et al., 2022) articulated that there is no level ground between the supply and demand of reused, recycled, and dismountable products, hence posing a barrier to the implementation of the circular economy.

Lack of market mechanisms for recovery.

The lack of standardisation of reused materials results in a higher construction cost as reused materials often require additional tests and consultations to acquire the required certificates and permissions (Kozminska, 2019). In addition, since there are insufficient and immature markets with bare competition and minimal supply and demand of reused and recycled materials (Kanters, 2020), secondary material prices are higher compared to virgin material (Campbell Johnston et al., 2019).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research study adopted a pragmatic philosophy, aligning with its suitability for mixed-methods research design, allowing for the integration of both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. The study focused on Harare and Bulawayo, which, according to the Construction Industry Federation of Zimbabwe (CIFOZ) list of (2022), and the Zimbabwe Special Economic Zones Authority (ZIMSEZA) OF (2019) are the primary hubs for civil engineering, building companies, construction companies, and consulting firms in Zimbabwe, housing 92% of such firms. The targeted population comprised quantity surveyors registered with the ZIQS, architects registered with ZIA, engineers registered with ZACE, and construction companies registered with CIFOZ categories A to C. A stratified sampling method was employed for CIFOZ-registered construction companies, using categories A to C as strata. Subsequently, simple random sampling without replacement was used to select companies within each stratum. The sample size was determined as 25% of the population within each sampled category, yielding a target sample of 64. Data collection involved semi-structured questionnaires and interviews, and articles from peer-reviewed journals and textbooks. Data collected via Google Forms was transferred to SPSS for computations and analysis. Mean score, severity index, and content analysis were employed for data analysis and interpretation.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

Demographic information of the respondents

A sum of 64 questionnaires were issued to respondents and 41 responses were received, indicating a 64% response rate. Yousuf (2020) asserted that a response rate of 50% or more is considered excellent during research and on the other hand, Fox (2020) argues that 60% response rate is strong and acceptable during research, therefore, a 64% response rate was deemed sufficient enough and appropriate to examine the findings. The qualifications of the respondents were a diploma (10%), a Bachelor’s degree (68%), and a Master’s degree (28%). 24% of female respondents and 76% of males, showing that traditionally the construction industry is male-dominated (National Association of Women in Construction, 2020). Moreover, a majority of the respondents were Engineers (49%), followed by Architects (24%) and Contractors (20%), while Quantity Surveyors had the lowest number of respondents (7%).

Barriers impeding adoption of CE

The general trend in the table below shows that all the listed challenges are severe as they all rank above 50%.

	Ranking	Rating					N	SI
Challenges		1	2	3	4	5	41
High initial costs	1	0	0	7	8	25	41	87%
Perception of quality of recycled material	2	0	6	4	9	21	41	80%
Inadequate government support	3	1	4	6	10	19	41	79%
Limited Knowledge	4	2	4	6	12	16	41	76%
Cultural resistance to change	5	3	2	7	14	14	41	75%
Lack of training	6	1	4	8	16	11	41	74%
Policy and regulatory barrier	6	0	5	10	13	12	41	74%
Lack of CE infrastructure	6	3	1	11	11	14	41	74%
Lack of awareness	7	5	4	6	12	13	41	70%
Limited Supply and demand of recycled resources	8	1	9	9	13	8	41	67%
Lack of market mechanisms for recovery	9	9	3	8	10	10	41	63%

In compliance with the literature of different scholars reviewed in this study, 11 challenges were considered significant. These research findings show that the identified challenges have a huge impact on the adoption rate of CE.

From the obtained results, high initial costs and perception of quality and durability of recycled material were ranked the most prominent constraints impeding the adoption of CE in the construction industry. In a similar study conducted by (AlJaber, et al., 2023), the economic cost with high initial cost emerged as the second leading barrier impeding the adoption of CE. This indicates that the initial financial burden associated with adopting circular practices, such as investing in new technologies, retrofitting existing structures, or establishing efficient waste management systems, hinders the widespread adoption of circularity in construction, as noted by (Tleuken et al., 2022; Chong and Gau, 2015). This was supported by Rios, Chong, and Grau, (2015), who say that these high initial costs make it difficult for some businesses to shift to more circular practices.

With regards to lack of government support, that is ranked at 79% severity index as the 3^rd leading factor. it shows that lack of this support in the form of financial mechanisms such as low interest loans or green bonds to companies adopting circular economy principles is a significant barrier to the promotion and acceleration of the transition to a circular economy as pointed by (Luciano et al, 2022; AlJaber, et al., 2023; Gerbens-Leenes , et al., 2018). The governments should encourage firms to adopt circular practices by reducing the financial burden and offsetting the costs associated with transitioning to circular models. The lack of this needed support creates uncertainty and reluctance among firms and investors (Benites, et al., 2023).

Supply and demand of recycled resources and lack of market mechanisms for recovery ranked the least severe challenges to the adoption of circular economy, with severity indices of 67% and 63% respectively. Their insufficiency has led to an increased reliance on virgin materials, which continues in environmental degradation. This mismatch between the supply and demand of reused, recycled, and dismountable products (Hartwell, Macmillan and Overend, 2021; Giorgi et al, 2022) leads to slowed adoption of circular economy as the industry is concerned about the quality of recycled material (Homrich, et al., 2018; Adams , et al., 2017). Moreover, the absence of an efficient reused materials market can drive increased demand for resource extraction and the production of new materials to meet market needs, consequently depleting valuable resources and resulting in inefficient resource management (Akinade et al, 2020).

Relationship between CE and environmental degradation mitigation

One of the study objectives was to address the impacts of the circular economy in mitigating environmental degradation. To achieve this objective, Spearman’s correlation was used to determine whether there is a relationship between the circular economy and mitigating environmental degradation. The correlation matrix in the table below shows the relationship between levels of agreement amongst respondents on the impact of the circular economy in mitigating environmental degradation.

Correlations
			Average of Extent	Average of impacts
Spearman’s rho	CE practices	Correlation Coefficient	1	-.486**
		Sig. (2-tailed)	.	0.001
		N	41	41
	CE impacts	Correlation Coefficient	-.486**	1
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.001	.
		N	41	41
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*

By looking at the value of the correlation coefficient, which shows a moderate negative correlation, a conclusion can be drawn that CE induces a greater impact on mitigating resource depletion and climate change. The result is consistent with what Sverko Geodic et al. (2020) allude saying that utilizing the circular economy concept can promote conservation of natural resources.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings suggest that while some of the major construction companies are currently looking to integrate circular economy thinking into their strategic planning, a number of them have reported on innovative and experimental initiatives, although the widespread and comprehensive translation of such thinking into construction practice is still at an infant stage. Moreover, from the literature reviewed, 11 key barriers were identified, and high upfront costs of adopting circular economy practices like recycling were accredited as the most significant barrier for failure to adopt the new emerging paradigm. To add on, dominance of the higher rankings of the significance for the majority of challenges is a clear indication that their existence greatly cripple successful adoption of circularity in the construction industry resulting in persistent environmental degradation. Additionally, the research findings have shown that the negativity of the correlation coefficient shows that adopting a circular economy in the construction industry leads to a significant decrease in construction resources’ depletion and climate change due to reduced deforestation. The results highlight the need for construction companies to engage in research and development of new circular economy practices and technologies to counter for ineffectiveness of the already existing ones. The results also call for the built environment training institutions to integrate CE principles in their training and the need for continuous professional development courses to reskill and up-skill practitioners relative to CE. This could speed up the rate of shifting from the unsustainable linear economy to a circular economy, which enhances successful environmental sustainability. In addition, the results emphasize the need for the Government to provide incentives, tax breaks, subsidies, low-interest loans, or green bonds to cushion construction organizations to economically adopt a circular system. Additionally, there is a need for increased research on other CE concepts other than just waste minimization and recycling from a systems perspective, including how new business models might enable materials to retain high residual values.

REFERENCES

1. Adams , K. T., Osmani, M., Thorpe, T. & Thornback, J., 2017. Circular Economy in Construction: Current Awareness, Challenges and Enablers. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Waste Resour. Manag, Volume 170, p. 15–24.
2. Adams, K. T., Osmani, M., Thorpe, T. & Hobbs, G., 2017. The role of the client to enable circular economy in the building sector. International HISER Conference on advances in recycling and management of construction and Demolition Waste, 118-121.
3. Akinade, O.; Oyedele, L.; Oyedele, A.; Delgado, J.M.D.; Bilal, M.; Akanbi, L.; Ajayi, A.; Owolabi, H. Design for Deconstruction Using a Circular Economy Approach: Barriers and Strategies for Improvement. Plan. Control 2020, 31, 829–840.
4. AlJaber, A., Vazquez , P. M. & Baniotopoulos, C., 2023. Barriers and Enablers to the Adoption of Circular Economy Concept in the Building Sector: A Systematic Literature Review.
5. Anastasiades, K., Blom, J., Buyle , M. & Audenaert, A., 2020. Translating the circular economy to bridge construction: Lessons learnt from Critical literature review. Renewable, Sustainable Energy, Volume 117, pp. 1-11.
6. Benachio, G.L.F., Freitas, Maria do Carmo Duarte and Tavares, S.F. (2020) ‘Circular economy in the construction industry: A systematic literature review’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, p. 121046.
7. Benites, H. S., Osmond , P. & Prasad, D., 2023. Inquiry on Perceptions and Practices of Built Environment Professionals Regarding Regenerative and Circular Approaches. Building, 63(13).
8. Campbell-Johnston, K., ten Cate, J., Elfering-Petrovic, M., & Gupta, J. (2019). City level circular transitions: Barriers and limits in Amsterdam, Utrecht and The Hague. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 1232-1239.
9. Cellucci, C., 2021. Circular economy strategies for adaptive reuse of residential building. VITRUVIO- International Journal of Architectural Technology and Sustainability, 6(`1), pp. 110-121.
10. Chibesakunda, E. et al., 2023. The circular economy: an opportunity for the buildings and construction sector. In: s.l.:Pwc.
11. CIFOZ, 2022. CIFOZ MEMBERSHIP LIST, Harare: CIFOZ.
12. Creswell, (2012). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
13. De Silva, S., Samarakoon , S. M. & Haq, M., 2023. Use of circular economy practices during the renovation of old buildings in developing countries. Sustainable Feautures, 6(100135).
14. Dunant, C.F.; Drewniok, M.P.; Sansom, M.; Corbey, S.; Allwood, J.M.; Cullen, J.M. Real and Perceived Barriers to Steel Reuse across the UK Construction Value Chain. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 126, 118–131.
15. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, (2017) Ellen MacArthur Foundation. A New Textiles Economy: redesigning fashion future. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017), Google Scholar
16. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, (2019). THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY IN DETAIL. [Online] Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/ explore/ the-circular-economyin-detail [Accessed 10 February 2024].
17. European Commission, 2020. Questions and Answers on the Commission Communication “Towards a Circular Economy ” and the Waste Targets Review., l.: s.n.
18. Gerbens-Leenes , P., Hoekstra, , A. & Bosman, R., 2018. The blue and grey water footprint of construction materials: Steel, cement and glass.. Water Resources and Industry,, Volume 19, pp. 1-12Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. & Hultink, E. J., 2017. The Circular Economy e A new sustainability paradigm. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 143, pp. 757-768.
19. Gullingsrud and Perkkins, (2015) A. Gullingsrud, L. Perkkins. Designing for the circular economy: cradle to Cradle® design.
20. Hana Yousef Al Sholi et al., Circular Economy, (2023).
21. Hart, J. et al., 2018. Barriers and drivers in a circular economy: the case of the built environment. l., Elsevier.
22. Hart, J. et al., 2019. Barriers and Drivers in a Circular Economy: The Case of the Built Environment.. p. 619–624..
23. Hartwell, R.; Macmillan, S.; Overend, M. Circular Economy of Façades: Real-World Challenges and Opportunities. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 175, 105827.
24. Homrich, A. s., Galvao, G., Abadia, L. G. & Carvalho, M. M., 2018. The circular economy umbrella: Trends and gaps on integrating pathways.. Cleaner Production, 175(175), pp. 525-543.
25. Hossan, D., Alhasnawi. M. (2013). Sample size and sampling methods. https://www.herald.co.zw/sand-poachers-on-theprowl/#:~:text=The%20extensive%2 0sand%20poaching%20in,steal%20sand%20from%20public%20land.
26. Kanters, J. (2020). Circular building design: An analysis of barriers and drivers for a circular building sector. Buildings, 10(4), 77.
27. Kozminska, U. Circular Design: Reused Materials and the Future Reuse of Building Elements in Architecture. Process, Challenges and Case Studies. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 225, 012033
28. Lacy, P. & Rutqvist, J., 2015. Waste to Wealth: The Circular Economy Advantage. In: P. Macmillian, ed. 1st ed. London: Palgrave Macmillian.
29. Leising, E., Quist , J. & Bocken, N., 2018. Circular Economy i the building sector: three cases and a collaboration tool. Volume 176, pp. 976-989.
30. Luciano, A.; Cutaia, L.; Altamura, P.; Penalvo, E. Critical Issues Hindering a Widespread Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) Recycling Practice in EU Countries and Actions to Undertake: The Stakeholder’s Perspective. Chem. Pharm. 2022, 29, 100745.
31. Mahpour, A., 2018. Prioritizing Barriers to Adopt Circular Economy in Construction and Demolition Waste Management. Conserv. Recycl., Issue 134, p. 216–227..
32. Manomano, 2023. The Herald. [Online] Available at:https://www.herald.co.zw/circular-economy-key-to-clean-environment.
33. Mhlanga, P., (2018). Zimbabwe construction sector faces major hurdles. The Contractor-Construction Industry Federation of Zimbabwe (C I F O Z), p. 14
34. Murray, A., Skene, K. & Haynes, K., 2015. The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Concept and Application in a Global Context. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 140, pp. 369-380.
35. National Association of Women in Construction. (2020). Women in Construction: Facts and Figures.
36. Nheta, 2019. The Herald. [Online] Available at:https://www.herald.co.zw/construction-industry- should adopt-bim-processes/ [Accessed 17 December 2021].
37. Oyedele , L. O., Ajayi , S. O. & Kadiri, K. O., 2014. Use of Recycled Products in UK Construction Industry: An Empirical Investigation into Critical Impediments and Strategies for Improvement.. Conserv. Recycl. , Issue 93, pp. 23-31.
38. Purchase, C.K.; Zulayq, D.M.A.; O’Brien, B.T.; Kowalewski, M.J.; Berenjian, A.; Tarighaleslami, A.H.; Seifan, M. Circular Economy of Construction and Demolition Waste: A Literature Review on Lessons, Challenges, and Benefits. Materials 2022, 15, 76.
39. Rahla , K. M., Bragança , L. & Mateus, R., 2019. Obstacles and Barriers for Measuring Building’s Circularity. l., s.n.
40. Seyis, S. (2020) ‘Mixed method review for integrating building information modeling and life-cycle assessments’, building and Environment, 173(October 2019), p. 106703.
41. Shooshtarian, S. et al., 2023. Circular Economy in the Australian AEC Industry: Investigating Barriers and Enablers. Build,Res.Info, Issue 51, pp. 56-68.
42. Thomas, S. R. (2021). Circular economy in Europe: Critical perspectives on policies and imaginaries. Routledge.
43. Tleuken, A., Tokazhanov, G., Jemal, K. M., Shaimakhanov, R., Sovetbek, M., & Karaca, F. (2022). Legislative, Institutional, Industrial and Governmental Involvement in Circular Economy in Central Asia: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 14(13), 8064.
44. Wuni, I. Y. (2022b). Mapping the barriers to circular economy adoption in the construction industry: A systematic review, Pareto analysis, and mitigation strategy map. Building and Environment, 109453.